Diplomacy & Crisis News

Cease-fire and hostage release negotiations are expected to resume in Cairo for two days starting Thursday.

A deal intended to reduce tensions in the South China Sea after a violent confrontation in June has had limited effect.

A botched rollout of the party platform shows how foreign policy is a sideshow in U.S. elections.

There is irony in what appears to be an Iranian hack of the electronic files of Donald Trump’s campaign. Details are unclear and unconfirmed, but a day after Microsoft issued a report about efforts by hackers in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to target a senior official in an unnamed U.S. presidential campaign, the Trump campaign stated that it was a victim of that effort. 

In what may or may not have been a result of such a hack, internal campaign documents—including a vetting file on eventual vice-presidential nominee JD Vance—were then sent to Politico, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung declared, “Any media or news outlet reprinting documents or internal communications are doing the bidding of America’s enemies and doing exactly what they want.”

The irony comes from comparing that complaint with Trump’s posture toward such hacking by foreign adversaries during his first presidential campaign. “Russia, if you’re listening,” said Trump in a campaign speech in July 2016, “I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing”—a reference to emails of his opponent, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. 

The Russian regime evidently was listening because shortly afterward, its hackers pulled documents from Clinton’s personal account as well as accounts of her presidential campaign. Russia conveyed the resulting large haul of documents to WikiLeaks—the operation that has divulged wholesale much stolen classified material related to U.S. national security—as its instrument for disseminating the Clinton material. Trump repeatedly and publicly expressed his delight with the Russia-WikiLeaks caper, saying, “I love WikiLeaks.”

Trump’s response to this operation was part of how he and his campaign welcomed, exploited, and facilitated Russia’s extensive and multifaceted interference in the 2016 election. Among other things, Trump or senior people in his campaign replayed material from Russian internet trolls and met with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer to seek dirt on their Democratic opponents. At the same time, the chairman of Trump’s campaign repeatedly met and shared polling data with a Russian intelligence agent. Trump brushed off any criticism of his use of the Russian election interference, saying this was just another form of “opposition research.”

The Founding Fathers were deeply worried about how partisan motivations could open the door in this way to foreign interference in American politics. The worries extended to interference by putative allies as well as adversaries. A price of the alliance with France during the Revolutionary War had been French meddling that exploited divisions between factions within the Continental Congress.

The Federalist Papers, which emphasized the evils of factionalism, drew attention to how those evils included the encouragement of foreign interference. Several of the earliest essays in the series—written by John Jay, who was in charge of U.S. foreign affairs between the Revolutionary War and the adoption of the Constitution—warned of damaging transnational alliances between foreign powers and American political factions.

The damage continued during much of the Federalist Era, which was plagued by intense partisanship. Policies toward France and Britain—the two foreign powers that then mattered most to the United States—were corrupted by how Federalists and Democratic-Republicans mixed their partisan affinities to one or the other foreign power with their domestic political objectives.

The growth of national power freed the United States, for most of its subsequent history, from significant foreign interference in its own elections. It became more common for the United States, as a superpower, to interfere in other countries’ domestic politics rather than the other way around. 

But over the last three decades, this pattern has changed. Foreign interference in U.S. electoral politics has again become significant. 

One reason involves technology. Hacking and trolling are tools for interference that did not exist in pre-internet times.

Another reason is partisanship, which has become at least as intense and poisonous as it was in the Federalist Era. The dissipation of an earlier Cold War consensus that had guided much of U.S. foreign policy means that the outcomes of U.S. elections matter more to foreign regimes than they did before. The identification with a party that many Americans feel more than with the nation as a whole has fostered an “anything goes” attitude toward political competition that leads to excesses such as Trump’s version of “opposition research.” 

The same sort of self-identification also breeds affinities with foreign factions and regimes of a similar political persuasion. Americans had traditionally played little role in transnational political movements, but that is no longer the case, at least on the Right. The sort of transnational factional alliance about which Jay warned is now a reality.

Congressional testimony earlier this year by Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines on foreign threats to the 2024 elections mentioned Russia, China, and Iran as regimes worth watching. Haines named Russia as the most active foreign threat to U.S. elections, with goals of discrediting U.S. democracy, exacerbating internal divisions within the United States, and impeding Western support for Ukraine. 

Intelligence directors shy away, especially in public testimony, from anything that starts to touch on partisan politics. Still, unquestionably, Russia’s goal this year, as it was in 2016 and 2020, is to help elect Donald Trump. Trump’s authoritarian-envy positive views of Russian president Vladimir Putin, which have helped to make the Republican Party—despite its traditional anti-Moscow posture from Cold War days—more favorably inclined toward Russia than the Democrats are, would be enough to influence Moscow’s choice. There also is the prospect that a second Trump term would likely mean less Western support for Ukraine.

Iranian leaders probably would like to see Trump lose, given that his policy toward Iran in his earlier term was unmitigated hostility and a rejection of diplomacy in favor of unrestricted economic warfare. The policy was bad news for everyone involved and led to an accelerated Iranian nuclear program and a more aggressive Iranian regional posture, and certainly was at least as bad for the Iranians themselves as for anyone else. An exception to this Iranian preference may come from some hardliners in Tehran who would welcome playing off hardliners in the United States to strengthen their own domestic position. 

Iran probably also has other objectives, such as general gathering of information, that would involve targets beyond Trump. Shortly after the Trump campaign announced that Iran had hacked it, Kamala Harris’s campaign revealed that it, too, was the target of a “foreign actor influence operation.” However, whether this involves Iran is something the FBI is still investigating.

Haines said China’s influence operations are aimed at cultivating favorable positions toward China at all levels. So far, these efforts do not appear to be aimed at helping one presidential candidate over the other. This reflects the Chinese expectation that Washington will take a hard line against them regardless of who wins the election in November.

Intelligence directors and other U.S. officials also shy away from any mention of Israel in the same breath as adversaries such as Russia, China, and Iran. Still, in omitting mention of Israel, Haines said nothing about the foreign state that has for years been the most active and successful foreign influencer in U.S. elections. The lobby that is involved recently demonstrated its continued clout by pouring millions into a couple of primary races and ousting two members of Congress who had dared to criticize Israel’s conduct in the Gaza Strip. 

Although that lobby for years strove to keep its fingers in both American political camps and to some extent still does—that recent demonstration of clout was in Democratic Party primaries—there now is a pronounced partisan tilt to its influence. The Republican Party has become the Israel-right-or-wrong party as politics within Israel have moved ever farther to the extreme Right. Trump and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu are in a strong electoral alliance. 

The Israeli government conducts most of its influence efforts in the United States openly. But more recently, it has also employed covert methods, using fake social media accounts and fake news sites to influence American politicians and the American public in the same manner that Russia, China, or Iran might. 

The covert Israeli operations that have come to light so far are aimed at nurturing U.S. support for the Israeli military assault on the Gaza Strip. But any Israeli influence efforts, either overt or covert, that may get closer to presidential politics would certainly be in support of Trump, who, during his term in office, gave Israel and Netanyahu almost anything they wanted, with nothing in return except political support for Trump himself.

Interference by any foreign government in U.S. politics and elections entails several harms. For one thing, U.S. elections are supposed to determine the composition of a government that is of, by, and for the American people. This is less the case to the extent that non-Americans have an influential role.

Foreign interference also skews U.S. policy toward the countries that are interfering. U.S. policy toward, say, Iran ought not to be shaped by anything the Iranian regime might do to influence thinking, much less political outcomes, in America. The same goes for U.S. policy toward Russia, China, Israel, or any other foreign country.

A corollary to this harm is that an American politician who benefits from foreign interference may shape policy toward the foreign country in question out of gratitude for the help or as an implied quid pro quo. Trump’s still partially opaque relationship with Putin and Russia ought to be a source of worry in this regard.

A foreign country meddling in U.S. politics is a single-issue form of influence. The meddler cares only about his own country’s objectives and not about any collateral damage to U.S. interests. When the core of the Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), abandoned its pretense of not taking sides in U.S. partisan politics and formed its own political action committee, its initial list of endorsees in 2022 included dozens of election deniers—Republican members of the House of Representatives who had voted against certifying results of the 2020 presidential election. The collateral damage was a direct blow to U.S. democracy.

Intelligence agencies and the media can do only so much to uncover harmful foreign interference in U.S. elections. Mitigation of the problem requires adherence by politicians to a code of conduct, according to which acceptance of such foreign help is simply wrong. Such an ethos existed during the Federalist Era, despite breaches of the code, and was part of how the nation was eventually able to overcome both the foreign meddling and the intense partisanship of the time.

Some political leaders of both parties have exhibited such an ethos closer to our own time. In 1992, a group of Republican Congressmen urged President George H.W. Bush to try to salvage his faltering re-election campaign against Bill Clinton by asking the Russians or the British for information about Clinton’s protests against the Vietnam War as a young man while in London and Moscow. Bush and his senior aide, James Baker, immediately rejected the idea as improper. In 2000, when information surfaced that Al Gore’s presidential campaign and the Democrats possibly received Chinese financial contributions, Clinton and Gore made clear that U.S. elections must be free from any foreign interference and cooperated with the subsequent investigation.

Contrast that with the approach of Trump, who, according to Robert Mueller’s report, repeatedly impeded the investigation of the Russian interference in the 2016 election. It is only when such a destructive approach to the subject is eradicated that the harms from foreign interference in America’s elections will be overcome.

Paul R. Pillar retired in 2005 from a twenty-eight-year career in the U.S. intelligence community, in which his last position was as the National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia. Earlier, he served in a variety of analytical and managerial positions, including as chief of analytic units at the CIA, covering portions of the Near East, the Persian Gulf, and South Asia. His most recent book is Beyond the Water’s Edge: How Partisanship Corrupts U.S. Foreign Policy. He is also a contributing editor for this publication.

Image: Shutterstock.com.

Summary and Top Line Points You Need to Know: The Soviet Union's Project 705 Lira (NATO: Alfa) submarines, introduced in 1971, were groundbreaking due to their use of titanium hulls and lead-bismuth cooled reactors.

-These innovations allowed the Alfa-class subs to achieve exceptional speeds of over 40 knots and dive to depths of 350 meters, with a crush depth of 1,300 meters.

-Designed during the Cold War to compete with American submarines, the Alfa class featured a double-hull construction, minimal crew requirements, and impressive capabilities.

-However, initial issues with hull cracking were eventually resolved. Despite their advanced design, only seven were built, with the last decommissioned in 1996.

The Soviet Alfa-Class Submarines: Speed Demons of the Cold War

The modern submarine is a sophisticated machine that must meet demanding mechanical specifications. The specifications are demanding because the mission profile is somewhat unnatural.

Submarines must host a crew of sailors at, and beneath, the sea for extended periods of time.

While at sea, the submarine is often tasked with clandestine and highly sensitive operations. And always, the submarine must have the capacity to hone its various weapons systems (including nuclear) on land and/or marine-based targets. Accordingly, the mechanical specifications imposed on submarines are demanding.

Naturally, submarine manufacturers have spent the last century innovating, pushing for technological advancements, and trying to improve their machines and their war-fighting capacity.

Incentive to Innovate

In the 1970s, the Soviet Union was locked in a global Cold War with the United States. The two countries raced to create and field more advanced weaponry than each other. The most apparent venue for the tech race between the two Cold War powers was of course in space. Known as The Space Race, competition to be the first fueled intense tech development – culminating in America’s Apollo program and men walking on the moon.

But the Cold War competition raged simultaneously in other, less visible venues. Aerospace development, for example, where Soviet manufacturers like Mikoyan and Sukhoi raced American manufacturers like Boeing and Lockheed to field the most advanced fourth-generation, and later fifth-generation, fighters. The competition also extended to tanks. Intercontinental ballistic missiles. Aircraft carriers. And submarines.

To gain some sort of edge on the Americans, the Soviets experimented and pushed. The result, in one instance, was rather novel: building a submarine hull from titanium.

Titanium Hull Alfa-Class

In 1971, the Soviets unveiled their Project 705 Lira submarine (NATO reporting name Alfa). Project 705 was a nuclear-powered attack submarine notable for two things: the use of a titanium hull, and for being one of the fastest military submarines ever built. I

In fact, the Alfa-Class was second in speed to only one other submarine model, a Soviet prototype known as K-222.

The Project 705 Lira marked the first time that titanium was used in the hull design of a submarine. Titanium is a chemical element that can be reduced to produce a lustrous transition metal with valuable properties: low density, high strength, and resistance to sea water. Understandably, given titanium’s properties, the Soviets were keen to experiment with the material in their submarine design.

While the Project 705 did not sail until 1971, the idea was first proposed in 1957. The project was conceptualized to meet a set of demanding requirements (in the name of competing with American submarine design).

The requirements held that the new submarine must have sufficient speed to be able tp pursue any ship; the capability to evade anti-submarine weapons; the ability to succeed in underwater combat; low detectability; minimal displacement; and as small a crew as possible.

To meet the array of proposed requirements, a titanium alloy hull was selected. The idea is that a titanium hull would allow for low drag, low weight, and as a result, high speeds and deep dives. The design was meant to serve as an interceptor, which would stay in a harbor, or on a patrol route, and then race to meet an enemy as needed.

The Alfa-Class hull, like most Soviet nuclear submarines, was constructed as a double hill. With the double hull design, the internal hull is built to withstand the water pressure imposed during deep dives, while the external hull protects the internal hull and provides a more ideal hydrodynamic shape.

The titanium hull, like so many novel technologies, proved difficult at first. The lightweight alloy was prone to cracking – and the first Project 705 submarine was decommissioned on account of hull cracking. But the Soviets were able to improve their metallurgy and welding technologies sufficiently to eliminate hull cracking on all future Project 705 submarines.

To propel the titanium-hulled Project 705, a lead-bismuth cooled beryllium-moderated reactor was installed. The liquid metal cooled reactor had several advantages including: higher energy efficiency; did not need to be refueled – ever; lighter and smaller than water-cooled reactors. The lead-bismuth cooled reactor, and its weight and energy advantages, was a conceptual fit with the titanium hull – both were geared towards making a smaller, faster vessel.

The finished product was a submarine measuring 81 meters in length, with a 9.5-meter beam, and a 7.6-meter draft. The Project 705 displaced 2,300 tons when surfaced, and 3,200 tons when submerged. The submarine could operate regularly at depths of 350 meters, with a crush depth of about 1,300 meters. Most impressively, the Project 705 could achieve speeds in excess of 40 knots – all while carrying a complement of torpedoes, and/or cruise missiles, and/or mines.

In all, seven Project 705 Alfa-Class submarines were commissioned, one of which remained in service until 1996.  

About the Author: Harrison Kass

Harrison Kass is a prolific defense write with over 1,000 pieces published. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

All images are Creative Commons. Image is of a Akula-Class sub. 

Summary and Key Points: The Soviet Union's Project 705 Lira (NATO: Alfa) submarines, produced between 1968 and 1981, were groundbreaking for their use of titanium hulls and lead-bismuth-cooled fast reactors, allowing unprecedented speed and depth. These subs could reach 41 knots and dive to 1,148 feet, making them elusive targets.

-However, they were plagued by flaws, including excessive noise and the high cost and difficulty of working with titanium.

-The lead boat, K-64, suffered a reactor failure, leading to its decommissioning.

-Despite their innovative design, the Alfa class was ultimately too expensive and flawed to sustain, with all units decommissioned by 1996.

How Soviet Alfa-Class Submarines Pushed the Limits of Naval Warfare

Between 1968 and 1981, the Soviet Union produced a total of seven Project 705 Lira (NATO reporting name Alfa) nuclear-powered attack submarines.

The boats were cutting edge when they were produced, and in addition to the then-revolutionary use of titanium for the hull, each of the subs utilized a powerful lead-bismuth cooled fast reactor (OK-550 or BM-40A, 155-MWt) as its power source.

That greatly reduced the size of the reactor, and in turn reduced the size of the submarine and allowed for high speeds. The submarines displaced 2,300 tons surfaced/3,200 tons submerged and were just 267 feet in length and had a beam of 31 feet.

Notable Project 705 Lira or Alfa-class Facts:

The submarines were reported to be the world's fastest and deepest diving of their era and could reach a top speed of 41 knots submerged.

The boats could get to top speed in just about sixty seconds and do a 180-degree reverse at full speed in as little as forty seconds.

However, surfaced, the Alfa-class boats could only achieve around 12 knots. It should be noted that the Soviet's experimental nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine K-222 reached a submerged speed of 44.7 knots – but it was only a prototype.

Thanks to the use of titanium, which can tolerate higher pressures better than steel, the boats had a testing depth of 350 meters (1,148 feet), well below the reach of NATO anti-submarine weapons of the time. This could enable an Alfa-class sub to "theoretically" sit below the reach of NATO vessels while launching its own weapons.

In addition, the titanium hull proved more resistant to corrosion and also made the submarine even harder to detect as it is paramagnetic.

The boats, which featured a very high level of automation, required a rather small crew, which was made up exclusively of thirty-two officers and warrant officers. Originally it had been planned that just sixteen officers could operate the submarine.

In addition, the tiny crew was housed in the central compartment of the submarine, while the forward section contained the weapons system and electronics. It was only accessed for maintenance, as were the rear reactor and propulsion compartments. Many of the operations were completely automated, such as torpedo loading. That would have increased crew survivability in the case of war because the forward and aft compartments could be sealed off during combat operations.

The Project 705 Lira was also the first submarine to be equipped with an escape capsule; it even provided a safe exit for the entire crew from maximum depth. Such features became standard on Russian boats.

Flawed: Those Alfa-Class Subs Were Loud 

Despite its advanced features and capabilities, the Alfa-class boats had some notable Achilles Heels – first, they were loud. The noise generated from the boats was easily detectable. Another problem is that at the time, working with titanium wasn't easy. Russia had an advantage in that it was a major supplier of titanium, but bending and shaping the metal panels proved difficult. Titanium is also very unforgiving and there was also a high risk of imperfections within the metal that could have resulted in a catastrophic failure – especially for a submarine operating under extremely high pressures.

Alfa-Class: Too Expensive and Too Many Flaws? 

In the end, Project 705 Lira or Alfa-class was simply too expensive to mass-produce. In fact, after the lead boat, K-64, suffered a major reactor problem in 1972 – just a year after she entered service – the submarine was towed back to Severodvinsk where it was deemed too expensive to repair. Instead, K-64 was split in half and used to train Soviet submariners.

The remaining six boats continued in service – until April 1990 when five were decommissioned and scrapped. The final boat was eventually decommissioned in July 1996 and also scrapped.

You catch the Alfa-class submarine in the fictional movie the Hunt for Red October where one of the subs had a prominent part. 

About the Author: Peter Suciu 

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He regularly writes about military hardware, and is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The decommissioned Soviet aircraft carrier Minsk, once a proud member of the Soviet Pacific Fleet, caught fire while undergoing renovations in China for conversion into a military-themed tourist attraction.

-Anchored near Shanghai, Minsk had served as the centerpiece of a now-closed theme park for 16 years before the fire broke out on August 16, causing extensive damage to its superstructure.

-Despite no casualties, the fire has cast doubt on the future of the project. Minsk was a Kiev-Class carrier active from 1978 to 1994, but it now faces an uncertain future as a potential tourist attraction.

Why Was an Old Soviet Aircraft Carrier on Fire in China? 

Even decommissioned Soviet/Russian military equipment is faring poorly these days. Minsk, a decommissioned Soviet aircraft carrier that was sold to the Chinese for conversion into a tourist attraction, caught fire last weekend.

For eight years, Minsk has been anchored in a lagoon near Shanghai along the Yangtze River. The aircraft carrier was undergoing renovations for conversion into a tourist attraction that would be a part of a new military-themed park. Minsk had already spent 16 years as the central attraction at a now-closed theme park.

The fire started on August 16 and was extinguished within 24 hours, according to reports. 

“Images on social media showed thick smoke and large flames burning on the deck of the carrier,” CNN reported, “with later pictures showing extensive damage to the ship’s superstructure and charred metal on its flank below the main deck.”

According to local fire officials, the fire resulted in no casualties. The cause of the fire is under investigation.

The fire reduces the likelihood that Minsk will become the centerpiece of a new theme park. “It’s a pity that a fire has made the prospects of this project full of too many uncertainties,” one official said.

Better Days

Before being decommissioned and sold to China, Minsk was a proud member of the Soviet Pacific Fleet. The second of four Kiev-Class carriers, Minsk served from 1978 until 1994. Unlike American aircraft carriers of the same era, Minsk was conventionally powered, with an endurance of 13,500 nautical miles. An American contemporary had an endurance of about 25 years.

Minsk was smaller than her American contemporaries, too. Measuring 896 feet long, with a 161-foot beam, Minsk displaced 41,380 pounds when fully loaded. For propulsion, the carrier relied on four shaft geared steam turbines capable of generating 140,000 horsepower and a top speed of 32 knots.

Minsk was loaded with a variety of weaponry: four twin SS-N-12 Sandbox SSM launchers; two twin SA-N-3 Shtorm SAM launchers; two twin SA-N-4 Gecko SAM launchers; two twin 76 mm guns; eight AK-630 30 mm Close In Weapons Systems; ten 533 mm torpedo tubes; one twin SUW-N-1 ASW rocket launcher; and two RBU-600 anti-submarine rocket launchers.

The carrier boarded sixteen Yak-38M fighter aircraft and eighteen Kamov-25/27 helicopters. Again, American contemporaries were more impressive, with the ability to carry more than 100 fighter jets. 

While Minsk may never recover from the fire to serve as a tourist attraction, its sister ship, Kiev, is currently an attraction at the Binhai Aircraft Carrier Theme Park in Tianjin.

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: The Royal Netherlands Navy's Walrus-class submarines, introduced in the 1980s, are renowned for their silent operation and effectiveness, particularly in anti-submarine warfare.

-Initially designed for Cold War missions against Russian submarines, these diesel-electric boats have since excelled in various roles, including intelligence gathering and anti-piracy missions.

-Featuring advanced internal systems and an innovative "X-form" rudder configuration, the Walrus-class submarines have proven highly effective in international exercises, even "sinking" a U.S. aircraft carrier during a 1999 exercise.

-Despite plans for a replacement, two Walrus-class submarines will remain in service until the mid-2030s.

Meet the Walrus-Class Sub

Throughout the 20th century, the Royal Netherlands Navy made several unique contributions to military submarine design, notably the snorkel, and in 1942, Dutch submarines operating in the Far East sank more Japanese vessels than their American counterparts.

During the Cold War, the submarines of Royal Netherlands Navy continued their proud traditions – and in the 1980s introduced Walrus-class submarines.

Specifically designed for hunting Russian submarines during the Cold War, the boats of the Walrus-class earned a good reputation in the early post-Cold War world.

The diesel-electric submarines have been used in a number of international military exercises, but have also been tasked with many highly classified intelligence gathering operations, and even have been deployed in anti-piracy missions off the coast of Somalia.

Due to a fire that broke out during the construction of the lead boat, HNLMS Walrus (S802), the first of the class to enter service was actually the HNLMS Zeeleeuw (S803) – a fact that has led to some confusion over the name of the class.

Key Walrus-class Features

The boats feature notable internal improvements over the preceding Zwaardvis-class, including more powerful machinery. The three diesel generators have SEMT-Pielstick PA4V200 12-cyliner engines that deliver 4,700 kW (6,300 shp), while one electric motor provides 5,150 kW (6,910 shp) to a single shaft. On the surface, the submarines can reach a top speed of 13 knots, while submerged the boats have a maximum speed of 9 knots.

Displacing 2,490 tonnes (2,450 tons), each of the Walrus-class submarines are 222 feet (67.5 meters) in length, have a beam of 27 feet, seven inches (8.4 meters) and a draught of 21 feet, eight inches (6.6 meters). The submarines have a double-deck hull configuration that features a "teardrop" from. It is constructed of high-tensile steel and has a minimum number of apertures and welded joints.

The Walrus-class is unique in that its dive planes and rudders are arranged in an "X" configuration, rather than a vertical-horizontal cross. That "X-form" after-plane configuration requires a complex computerized control.

Attack Submarine

The submarines of the Walrus-class are equipped with four 21-inch (533mm) torpedo tubes, and each can carry up to twenty torpedoes or forty mines, as well as the UGM-84 Harpoon surface-to-surface missile.

The submarines were in high demand by NATO as they are noted to be extremely silent. During the multi-national "Joint Task Force Exercise/Theatre Missile Defence Initiative 1999" (JTFEX/TMDI99) HNLMS Walrus successfully penetrated the U.S. Navy screen and "sank" several ships, including the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) before escaping.

While the Dutch Ministry of Defense had announced plans to begin the development of a new class of submarines in November 2014 to replace the aging Walrus-class; in early April 2022, the Dutch parliament announced that at least two of the Walrus-class boats would be extended in service until the mid-2030s.

About the Author

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He regularly writes about military hardware, and is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: The U.S. Air Force (USAF) boasts a formidable fleet of aircraft, but concerns are rising about its aging capabilities, especially in light of modern threats like China. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall emphasizes the urgent need for modernization, not just in aircraft but in areas like electronic warfare and battle management.

-While the USAF still fields top fighters like the F-22 and F-35, much of the fleet comprises older models like the F-15 and F-16, which may struggle against advanced air defenses.

-The USAF plans to retire 310 aircraft in fiscal 2024 to reallocate resources for newer, more capable systems.

Outdated Fleet? The Urgent Call to Modernize the U.S. Air Force

The US Air Force (USAF) possesses a dazzling lineup of aircraft. Everything from the U-2 Dragon Lady to the A-10 Warthog. The C-130 Hercules and the KC-135 Stratotanker. The F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-22 Raptor. The F-35 Lightning II.

By roughly any metric – quantity, quality, variety, specialization – the US Air Force has accumulated the most impressive and capable collection of aircraft in human history.

Yet, despite the USAF’s impressive spread, concerns are mounting that the fleet is out of date – too old to participate effectively in a modern conflict, namely, a war with China.

Does the USAF need to upgrade? Or are calls for modernization just hawkish alarmism?

How Much Spending for the U.S. Military? 

Given the extensity of the existing fleet – and given the costs of modernizing – the idea that the USAF would need to substantially upgrade its fleet is concerning to anyone mindful of US military spending (or the federal deficit).

The simple fact is that the US spends more on defense than any nation on Earth. Actually, it’s not even close: the US defense budget has ballooned to $900 billion per year, threatening to eclipse the $1 trillion threshold.

Meanwhile, the only country that even comes close to approaching the US in defense spending – China – spends less than $300 billion per year in defense, about a third of the US total. So, the US spends about three hundred percent more than it’s closest competitor in defense spending.

Russia, long the primary bogeyman of US foreign policy, spends less than one-tenth of the US defense budget – and Russia ranks third in world defense spending.

The United Kingdom, Germany, and France – six, seven, and eight on the world defense spending rankings, respectively – spend less than $200 billion per year, combined.

The point is that the idea that America’s lavish defense spending may not have been sufficient to keep pace with the modern threat environment is disheartening.

Time to Modernize the U.S. Air Force?

“Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall insists the service needs to modernize rapidly to face the threat of China,” Chris Gordon reported. “But modernization does not just mean fielding new aircraft, Kendall and other service leaders argue – the Air Force also needs to retire its aging airplanes.”

“The truth is the Air Force needs things like electric warfare, battle management, intelligence, cyber capabilities, all of these things,” Kendall said last year. “It doesn’t just need airplanes.” Kendall elaborated that, “as the character of warfare changes,” systems like electric warfare, battle management, et cetera, will become increasingly important, likely competing with “traditional platforms.”

“We’re having to divest some of [traditional platforms] to free up resources to move forward,” Kendall said. “There’s been resistance to that in the past.”

Kendall is referring, in large part, to the increasing sophistication of air defense systems and the resultant inadequacy of legacy fighters – like the F-15 and F-16, which make up the bulk of the USAF fighter fleet – to operate against those air defense systems.

But, most of the US fleet requires that air superiority has been established to operate successfully. Otherwise, modern radar, modern SAMs, and modern air superiority fighters would pick off the US’s fourth-generation fighters (and support aircraft, of course).

What the US needs is aircraft that can operate against sophisticated air defense systems. That means stealth aircraft to evade detection. And it means aircraft with radar and missile systems advanced enough to compete against fifth-generation fighters.

The US does have aircraft meeting the above description. The F-22 Raptor is still the world’s preeminent air superiority fighter. And the F-35 is the world’s preeminent fighter with respect to radar, data fusion, situational awareness, and interconnectivity. But legacy equipment still makes up the majority of the USAF fleet – a force composition that US war planners are beginning to address.

“In fiscal 2024, the Air Force plans to retire 310 aircraft, including even more A-10s and E-3s, as well as 32 older F-22s,” Gordon wrote.

“I know it’s hard, locally, in particular, to divest aircraft,” Kendall said, referring to the reluctance of lawmakers to retire aircraft and in effect take away jobs and resources from local constituents.

“If it can, Kendall said, the Air Force wants to replace retired aircraft with similar systems, such as replacing an aging fighter unit with new fighter aircraft,” Gordon wrote. “If not, Kendall said the Air Force wants to convince lawmakers that a new unit something with “longevity.”

“These are operating problems we have to solve to be able to be effective against the threat that is emerging and moving forward fairly rapidly,” Kendall said. “China is not wasting any time.”

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

All images are from Shutterstock. 

Summary and 3 Points You Need to Know: China's military modernization has focused on developing anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) systems to keep U.S. forces out of the Indo-Pacific, enabling Beijing to deploy its growing aircraft carrier fleet to dominate the region.

-With three carriers, including the advanced Fujian, China aims to use these vessels as command centers in potential conflicts, particularly over Taiwan. As China's ambitions grow, so will its carrier fleet, posing a significant challenge to U.S. power projection.

-The U.S. should counter by establishing its own A2/AD defenses in the Western Hemisphere to deter Chinese expansion and protect American interests closer to home.

China’s Aircraft Carrier Fleet: A Growing Threat in the Indo-Pacific

China’s military has been on a modernization craze for over a decade. Beijing has done two interesting things in their drive to offset apparent U.S. military strengths. The first is to build a robust arsenal of anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) weapons and spread those weapons throughout the Indo-Pacific. 

In fact, China has invested heavily in more than just A2/AD. The world’s second-largest economy (in GDP terms) has built counterspace weapons, cyberwarfare capabilities, and other assets, all designed to do one thing: prevent the Americans from deploying forces into China’s near-abroad. 

In other words, China has perfected a strategy of denial to their region.

What China Desires with Their Aircraft Carriers

Once China’s military has denied the American military access to the Indo-Pacific, Beijing plans to deploy its growing aircraft carrier fleet to bully its neighbors into submission. 

The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) currently possesses three aircraft carriers. The first two carriers displace 60,000 tons and are based on old Soviet designs. The third carrier, the Fujian, displaces 80,000 tons and is indigenously designed and built by China.

What’s more, the Fujian incorporates new technologies. (Some of these, such as the electromagnetic catapult system – EMALS – were pilfered from the Americans via industrial espionage.) These new technologies have helped make the Fujian one of the most advanced carriers outside of the Western world. 

Indeed, it makes China’s third carrier a significant power player in the region, and a real challenger to American and British designs. 

The Fujian is not going to be the last advanced Chinese aircraft carrier. 

In 2012, China’s now-disgraced former president, Hu Jintao, declared the People’s Republic of China will become a “great maritime power” in its own right. Presidents Hu and Xi Jinping may not have agreed on much. But on the matter of China evolving to become a dominant naval power in the Indo-Pacific, they certainly did concur.

Thanks to China’s massive manufacturing sector (which they have in part courtesy of greedy Wall Street-types and short-sighted Western politicians), they can create a fleet of these advanced boats. The question remains, however, in the era of A2/AD, how can the PLAN avoid the same complications that A2/AD poses to U.S. flattops from imperiling the PLAN’s own growing fleet of carriers?

Beijing’s logic is simple. With the Americans repelled by China’s denial systems, they will have free reign over the South China Sea, the East China Sea, and the Taiwan Strait. 

They may even have dominance in the Yellow Sea and Sea of Japan, though that’s a harder sell, given South Korea’s military presence in the Yellow Sea and Japan’s presence in their eponymously named sea. And until the local governments deploy methods that could significantly threaten China’s growing aircraft carrier fleet, with the Americans pushed beyond the horizon, the PLAN thinks that it can rely upon its carrier fleet.

PLAN doctrine envisions their growing aircraft carrier fleet to be used as floating command centers. In any invasion of Taiwan, then, the carriers will be used to coordinate and command the overall invasion of the embattled island democracy. 

America Should Build Its Own Regional A2/AD Defenses

Given these factors, the size and disposition of any Chinese aircraft carrier force would be contingent on the overall ambitions of China’s rulers. 

Their fleet will grow as their ambitions increase. 

What’s more, their fleet will grow relative to what they perceive to be the weakness of the U.S. fleet that will remain China’s primary global challenger. Interestingly, the Chinese may suddenly find themselves faced with problems that the U.S. carrier fleet currently finds itself facing in the Indo-Pacific, should the PLAN try to move beyond the third island chain in the Pacific and penetrate deeper into the waters of the Western Hemisphere.

Toward that end, Washington should take far more seriously the concept of hemispheric defense. Rather than building more expensive flattops, the U.S. military should start honeycombing the Western Hemisphere with a comprehensive network of its own A2/AD systems that can keep China’s growing aircraft carrier fleet just over the horizon.

One thing should be clear, though. China’s strategy of denial in their near-abroad, coupled with their mass production capabilities, are building a considerable military threat to the Americans. At some point, the Americans will find their traditional forms of power projection useless in regions closer to China’s shores. 

Over time, too, the objectives of China’s force will shift considerably away from denying the U.S. military access to the Indo-Pacific, and toward penetrating waters nearer to the United States. 

America’s military is primed only for expeditionary missions. 

Soon, the United States will find itself living in a contested region, with Chinese warships prowling the waters just off America’s coast and throughout the Western Hemisphere. The time is now for the United States to start implementing a rapid plan of comprehensive hemispheric defense.

About the Author: 

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline.

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy's iconic Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, in service since 1975, are set to be extended due to rising global tensions and delays in the Ford-class replacement program.

-Vice Adm. Kenneth Whitesell confirmed plans to extend the lifespan of these carriers, given their crucial role in naval operations and the current strain on fleet resources.

-While the Ford-class carriers promise advanced capabilities like reduced crew requirements and an electromagnetic catapult system, production delays and budget overruns have slowed their deployment. Consequently, the Navy will continue to rely on the proven Nimitz-class carriers until the Ford-class is fully operational.

Why the U.S. Navy is Extending the Lifespan of Its Nimitz-Class Carriers

At some point, the iconic fleet of Nimitz-class aircraft carriers will be phased out of the U.S. Navy’s inventory. But it will be a while before the class at large. The lead ship debuted in 1975, but the Navy has plans to extend the venerable warships.

Extending the Nimitz

Despite being almost 50 years old, Nimitz-class vessels are still in high demand. As incidents flare in the Middle East and tensions rise in the Indo-Pacific, some pundits suggest the U.S. does not have enough aircraft carriers. I would argue that 11 supercarriers, by far the world’s largest inventory, is sufficient, but regardless, it seems unlikely the U.S. would enter a drawdown period when existing carriers are already overtaxed.

“Extending Nimitz, extending Ike, it’s going to happen for every Nimitz-class carrier. At least one extension,” said Vice Adm. Kenneth Whitesell in 2023, as reported by Aviation Week.

Geopolitical tensions are one reason the Nimitz class is likely to be extended. Delays to the upcoming Ford class is another. To avoid reductions in overall fleet quantity, the Navy will need to keep Nimitz vessels in service at least until replacements are available for deployment. But the Nimitz’s replacement, the Ford, has faced production issues. So while the $120-billion-plus Ford program is being sorted, the Navy will invest in Nimitz extensions.

“Carriers are the linchpin of everything we do in naval aviation,” said Rear Adm. Michael Donnelly, Aviation Week reported. “Our requirements are designed and aligned within our air wings to provide the capability out to the [combatant commands] for our ability to conduct the mission. Our ability to get the carriers out on time, whether it is new procurement or maintenance, is essential.”

Replacing the Nimitz

The Ford is a heralded vessel. But like many weapons projects that introduce new technology, the class has been slow to get off the ground. Its lead ship, USS Gerald R. Ford, was delayed and over budget, deploying some 15 years after being named. The ship was supposed to cost $10.5 billion but ended up costing $13.3 billion. And while the Ford is quite advanced in several respects, the ship is not yet capable of hosting the F-35C. Understandably, the Navy has reservations about replacing the tried-and-true Nimitz with a glitchy Ford.

On paper, the Ford is a revolutionary design. It is built around automated features that should reduce crew requirements and decrease costs over the lifetime of the ship. The Ford was designed to offer a higher Sortie Generation Rate than the Nimitz as a result of the EMALS electromagnetic catapult system – a theoretical upgrade over the steam-powered catapult found on the Nimitz. While the EMALS hasn’t worked perfectly, the concept should be easier and cheaper to operate once it is refined.

In the meantime, the Navy will no doubt continue relying upon their proven Nimitz-class carriers.

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

Summary and Key History You Need to Know: In the late 1990s, Boeing's X-32 competed against Lockheed Martin's X-35 in the U.S. Department of Defense's Joint Strike Fighter program, aiming to create a versatile fifth-generation fighter for multiple branches and allies.

-Boeing emphasized simplicity in its design, focusing on stealth and speed with a single-engine cycle and delta wing shape. However, the X-32's Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) system proved less efficient than Lockheed's lift-fan design.

-Ultimately, the X-35 outperformed the X-32 in stealth and supersonic flight, leading to its selection as the F-35 Lightning II, now a key asset in global air power.

Boeing’s X-32 and the Road Not Taken

The late 1990s saw a flurry of revolutionary advances and experiments in military aerospace. In that decade the U.S. Department of Defense initiated the Joint Strike Fighter program. The idea was to develop a fifth-generation warplane for use by the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, as well as by multiple U.S. allies.

America’s premier fifth-generation warplane, the F-22 Raptor, was for the U.S. Air Force’s exclusive use. Congress explicitly forbade the Air Force from selling any variation of the F-22 to allies, including the Israeli Air Force. The F-22 was so advanced that its technological capabilities had to be kept a state secret.

The JSF program was meant to move capabilities forward while not being so complex and sensitive that its use would be limited. This was also done to tamp down on the onerous costs the F-22 program imposed. Sharing the JSF across multiple branches and foreign militaries meant the supply chain would be diverse and funded by multiple sources. 

The program would eventually yield the F-35 Lightning II. 

The Joint Strike Fighter Competition 

Lockheed Martin’s F-35 was not a lock to be the airframe selected. When it was the X-35, the future Lightning II had stiff competition from the Boeing X-32. 

As part of their bid to win the JSF race, Boeing built two prototypes, the X-32A and the X-32B. The X-32A first flew in September 2000, and the X-32B took flight in March 2001. The X-32B’s Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) capability made it appealing to the Navy for aircraft carrier operations. 

The X-32’s design focused heavily on stealth capabilities and speed, placing it firmly within the fifth-generation family of fighter aircraft. Beyond that, Boeing focused on simplicity. The X-32 was built with a Rolls Royce single-engine cycle for both conventional flight as well as vertical lift. In so doing, Boeing planned to significantly reduce maintenance costs for the X-32. 

They designed this almost beetle-looking warbird with a simplified airframe shape: a delta wing with a single, large canopy that gave pilots greater situational awareness and visibility while in combat.

Simpler System or Too Simplistic for Its Own Good?

An interesting development came in the form of the STOVL lift system. Rather than go with the standard lift fan system, which was, as Boeing surmised, needlessly complex, they decided to simplify again. But too much oversimplification ended up getting in the way of the engine’s efficiency.

More problems were found during testing of the X-32B’s STOVL flight systems. Boeing’s engineers needed to concoct methods for overcoming the increased heat and structural stress when the plane went vertical. 

The bird was nowhere near as sophisticated as the F-22. Still, the X-32 was a stealth warplane. What’s more, it had speed. To enhance its flying, the bird was equipped with advanced avionics, too. 

Nevertheless, the Air Force concluded that the X-35 performed better in both stealth and supersonic flight.

Boeing's X-32 Stealth Fighter: A Better Bird?

Boeing’s simpler lift-fan system for STOVL in the X-32B was nowhere near as efficient or reliable as the one Lockheed included in their prototype. 

There are those who today insist that the X-32 was the better of the two. This author is not convinced. 

While the F-35 Lightning II has many problems that its supporters refuse to address, it remains a powerful warbird. When compared to its Boeing counterpart, it is obvious that Lockheed got the better of Boeing, and the Pentagon made the right choice. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Air Force has awarded an $11.7 million contract to Armtec Countermeasures to enhance the F-22 Raptor's radar countermeasure capabilities with the RR-196 chaff.

-This contract, managed by the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center at Hill Air Force Base, will support the stealth fighter's combat and training missions.

-Chaff, a longstanding radar countermeasure, disperses small reflective materials to confuse radar systems. Armtec's advanced chaff provides broad-frequency coverage and high radar reflectivity.

-The project, set for completion by September 2027, underscores the ongoing efforts to maintain the F-22's air superiority.

Armtec to Add Radar Countermeasure Capabilities to the F-22 Raptor

The United States Air Force's Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor remains the best air superiority fighter in service today, but the Pentagon is looking to increase the capabilities of the fifth-generation stealth fighter It awarded an $11.7 million firm-fixed price contract to Armtec Countermeasures, whereby the defense contractor will provide its RR-196 countermeasure chaff for the Raptor. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, at Hill Air Force Base (AFB), Utah, is the contracting activity for the program.

"This contract provides for the impulse cartridge program and is used by F-22 aircraft for combat and training purposes. Work will be performed in Lillington, North Carolina, and is expected to be completed by Sept. 30, 2027. This contract was a sole source acquisition. Fiscal 2024 ammunition funds in the amount of $11,700,000 are being obligated at the time of award," the United States Department of Defense (DoD) announced on Friday.

In addition to Lillington, Armtec also has facilities in Coachella, California.

Brief History Countermeasure Chaff

The Raptor is known for its stealth capabilities, which are truly a product of the "space age," while the development of chaff actually dates back to the early days of the Second World War. Yet, while it was determined that it was rather effective at countering radar, a concern during the war was that there was no effective "counter-countermeasure," and the British military opted not to use it until late in the war so that Germans couldn't gain a similar advantage.

Fast forward more than 80 years and the latest chaff isn't much than copper foil cut into strips or small pieces – as was the case back in the 1940s! However, there is still a bit more to it.

It can be dispersed to mask a target or just as ideally, present a larger – but false – target on a missile's radar.

Today the size of the chaff is what also matters.

"Chaff has remained a favorite soft-kill countermeasure for AShM radar seekers transmitting in X-band frequencies of 8.5 GHz to 10.68 GHz. X-band dipoles were relatively easy to produce. For chaff to be effective against 8.5-GHz radar seekers, dipoles would need to be between 17.63mm and 8.81mm long. Chaff effective against 10.68-GHz radars would need dipoles between 14mm and 7mm long," Defense and Security Monitor explained.

21st Chaff

Armtec hasn't specified exactly what sets its chaff apart from its competitors, but according to the company, "Radar countermeasure chaff is designed to decoy Radars and/or Radar-guided missiles. Our chaff products offer broad-frequency coverage, high Radar reflectivity, and minimal bird-nesting. Armtec chaff is available in S-band thru Ka-band and can be tailored to meet specific customer requirements."

Neither the DoD nor Armtec specified how many Raptors will be equipped with the RR-196 countermeasure chaff, but in addition for use with combat aircraft, the Armtec chaff will be employed for training purposes.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and What You Need to Know: U.S. Air Force Gen. David Allvin recently suggested a potential shift away from the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, hinting at the development of a "Light Fighter" concept.

-This new approach emphasizes adaptability over durability, with a focus on modular design, open systems architecture, and digital engineering.

-The move reflects concerns that multi-billion-dollar platforms like the NGAD could become obsolete quickly. Industry experts expressed surprise at this possible shift, as the NGAD was intended to replace the F-22.

-The Air Force's reconsideration may stem from lessons learned from the costly and time-consuming F-22 and F-35 programs.

Light Fighter Coming Soon to Replace NGAD?

Comments from U.S. Air Force Gen. David Allvin suggest the Air Force is considering alternatives to Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD), the service’s next air superiority platform. 

During the Global Air and Space Chiefs Conference in London, Allvin hinted the Air Force is considering a “light fighter” that is adaptable, modifiable, and upgradeable.

Allvin is not alone in suggesting a move away from NGAD. Other industry executives at the conference in July alluded to a possible shift.

“The conference’s proceedings later published by the RAeS (Royal Aeronautical Society) put this notional design against the background of the decision by the U.S.A.F. to ‘back away from the NGAD’ and ‘evaluate’ its future ‘options,’” The Aviationist reported. “The RAeS quoted unnamed defense industry executives and other attendees who observed a marked shift in the service’s attitude towards the project, which had hit rough weather owing to a host of technical and financial reasons.”

What is a Light Fighter?

Allvin discussed what he termed a “notional Light Fighter concept,” which would mark a conceptual shift in aircraft development away from the “built to last” philosophy to a “built to adapt” philosophy. 

On paper such a shift makes sense. Technology is improving at exponential rates. Modularity is becoming an expectation, allowing airframes to upgrade incrementally with new software and new avionics as technology becomes available. Making rigid technological commitments to a multi-billion-dollar platform that could become outdated in years rather than decades seems foolhardy. An emphasis on adaptability would ensure any new airframe could stick around for a little while. 

Allvin said deciding to build systems to last “can become an albatross…still functioning but it’s not as effective…The United States Air Force has a large majority of its systems designed and developed with this value proposition.” The Light Fighter would be built on adaptability, not ruggedness.

Allvin envisioned a jet that would rely on open systems architecture, modular design, digital engineering, and 3d-printing/additive manufacturing – techniques and concepts to improve an airframe repeatedly over time.

What Happens Now? 

Still, that the Air Force might back away from the highly touted NGAD program is catching the aerospace community off-guard. Excerpts from the RAeS proceedings referred to the NGAD pause as a “shock decision” while reporting that one senior defense industry executive said that they were “baffled by the decision.”

The NGAD was supposed to replace the F-22. Maybe lessons learned from the F-22 and the F-35 are influencing thinking about the NGAD. The Air Force’s two fifth-generation fighters were both over budget and time-intensive.

The F-22 is still the world’s premier air superiority fighter, but its stealth technology is outdated. The Air Force understandably would prefer their next fighter to stay relevant for as long as possible.   

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Top 3 Points You Need to Know: The SR-71 Blackbird, a symbol of Cold War aeronautical prowess, is approaching the 25th anniversary of its final flight on October 9, 1999.

-Renowned for its distinct design and speed—reaching Mach 3.32 at 85,000 feet—the SR-71 captured the imagination of pilots and aviation enthusiasts alike. However, the end of the Cold War and rising operational costs led to its retirement, as satellite reconnaissance became more viable.

-Despite its decommissioning, the SR-71 retains a cult status, with many of the 32 built now on display across the U.S., serving as a reminder of its groundbreaking achievements.

Why the SR-71 Blackbird Still Captivates Aviation Enthusiasts 25 Years Later

The twenty-fifth anniversary of the SR-71’s final flight is fast approaching. On October 9, 1999, the celebrated Blackbird made its last flight. Although retired since before the turn of the century, the SR-71 still retains a cult-like status amongst aviation enthusiasts who remember fondly the airframe’s distinct aesthetics and distinct speed.

SR-71 Blackbird Spy Plane, Explained

Around the conclusion of the Cold War, the SR-71 was falling out of favor. The shift in attitude was owed in large part to the Soviet decline, which spoiled the SR-71’s most important reconnaissance target. However, the sharp decline was also owed to the change in public sentiments that correlated with the fall of the Soviet Union. No longer were US citizens willing to spend so casually on defense projects. And an airframe like the SR-71, one so egregiously expensive to operate, found itself on the wrong side of public opinion.

The SR-71’s cost became harder to justify too. Alternative reconnaissance platforms such as satellites became available as a cheaper and more effective solution. While the satellite was fine concerning intelligence gathering, the device didn’t quite inspire the imagination in the same way as the SR-71. With a maximum speed of Mach 3.32 (2,200 miles per hour) and a service ceiling of 85,000 feet, the SR-71 was a marvel of aeronautical engineering.

Former Blackbird pilots recount the jet as, “an unforgiving endeavor, demanding total concentration. But pilots were giddy with their complex, adrenaline-fueled responsibilities. At 85,000 feet and Mach 3, it was almost a religious experience. Nothing had prepared me to fly that fast… My God, even now, I get goosebumps remembering.”

Given the emotions that the SR-71 inspired amongst pilots, and an enthusiastic public alike, the airframe’s retirement was especially bittersweet.

One Last Flight

On October 9, 1999, at Edwards Air Force Base in southern California, the SR-71 roared away from the runway for the last time. From below, a crowd of onlookers watched, and listened, as the SR-71 went supersonic. To help the onlookers below spot the streaking jet, which had climbed to 80,100 feet and accelerated to Mach 3.2, the pilots initiated a fuel dump, which was visible from the ground. Moments later, the spectators were able to hear two sonic booms – one from each end of the aircraft as it reached supersonic speeds.

Today, many of the 32 SR-71s that were built are on display. Six are in California, while several more are sprinkled from coast to coast. I’ve been fortunate to see the SR-71 (and its A-12 prototype) in person many times. The jet is visually striking, spear-shaped through the fuselage, and finished in black. It’s not hard to imagine the jet streaking through the upper atmosphere at Mach 3.

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Top 3 Points You Need to Know: Sweden’s Gotland-class submarines, equipped with advanced air-independent propulsion (AIP) systems, have proven their stealth and effectiveness in naval warfare. During a 2005 war game, the HMS Gotland managed to "sink" the USS Ronald Reagan, showcasing its ability to evade detection by even the most advanced U.S. Navy anti-submarine systems.

-The Gotland’s success stems from its quiet AIP system, reducing the need to surface and increasing its operational stealth.

-With recent upgrades, the Gotland-class remains a formidable underwater threat, raising the question of whether the U.S. Navy should test its capabilities against the improved subs, especially as China adopts similar technology.

How Sweden's Gotland-Class Sub Sank a U.S. Aircraft Carrier in War Games

Diesel engines aboard submarines used to be considered out of date and something more in line with World War II than today's modern stealthy subs.

Not so with Sweden’s Gotland-class of subs.

These modern diesel-electric boats, now powered by air-independent propulsion (AIP),  are so quiet that the U.S. Navy took an interest and leased one of the models to conduct testing and war games.

The result: a 'dead' US Navy Aircraft Carrier.

How the Gotland Sank The USS Ronald Reagan in a War Game 

There is so much interest in the Gotland-class submarines comes mainly from a war game several years back that went very badly for the U.S. Navy.

The HMS Gotland was able to penetrate the defensive measures of a carrier strike group in 2005. The small sub got so close it produced a photo of the carrier USS Ronald Reagan near San Diego. In a naval war game such as this, it is considered a “sinking.”

The Navy liked the Gotland so much that it leased it for a second year for more simulations. Now the Chinese have the same reduced-noise technology that is proving a challenge for American undersea warfare tactics.

It’s a Robust, Multi-role Sub

The Gotland-class boats were originally designed by Saab-Kockums and commissioned in the mid-to-late 1990s. These subs can fulfill all kinds of roles - from surface-attack to killing other submarines to dropping off special operations forces personnel. There are three of the boats in the Gotland-class and they are able to sneak up on adversaries and snoop for communications and electronic intelligence.

The Gotland Kicked *** in War Games Against the U.S. Navy

The U.S. Navy, with some of the best anti-submarine ships and aircraft in the world, just could not find the Gotland in combat simulations. The relatively low-cost $100 million (cheaper than a nuclear-powered model) sub was able to sneak around at will while performing opposing force (OPFOR) maneuvers. The Gotland and the American carrier battle group, consisting of several support ships, ran the simulation over and over and the Gotland still came out on top.

What’s the Secret?

The secret to the Gotland’s low acoustic signature is the quiet Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) system of the Stirling engine. This means the Gotland does not have to surface often or use a noisy snorkel like traditional diesel boats. Instead, the Stirling engine has a 75-kilowatt battery that uses liquid oxygen. The Stirling produces speeds of 11-knots on the surface and 20-knots submerged. The Gotland just runs on AIP for weeks at a time. The Swedes were the first to employ this type of propulsion.

Run Silent and Be Hard to Find

It has 27 electromagnets designed to lower its magnetic signature. Its hull is more sonar-resistant, and the tower is made of materials with some stealth characteristics. Equipment inside is covered with rubber acoustic-deadening to reduce sonar detection.

Not a Very Big Sub

The subs are relatively small at 205-feet long, have a beam of 20-feet, and a draft of 18-feet with a displacement of 1,380 tons. The crew numbers are low and only a maximum of 32 sailors can serve on board.

Watch Out for the Torpedoes

The Gotland has two 533mm and two 400mm torpedo tubes. The Bofors Type 613 torpedoes are launched from the 533mm tubes. The Type 613 is a muscular torpedo used in surface warfare. It has wire-guidance and homes in on targets, sending a warhead of 529 pounds. The sub can also lay mines.

Gotland-class Gets Upgrades

Since the Gotland was originally produced in the 1990s, the Swedes instituted a 2020 mid-life upgrade During this time 50 systems such as navigation and sensors were newly fitted, and others changed. The next generation of the Blekinge-class will allow the subs to assess their environment with an optronic mast, which will replace the periscope.

U.S. Navy vs. Gotland: A Rematch? 

If it hasn’t already, the U.S. Navy should work with the Swedish Navy to replicate the 2005 training exercises to see if the Americans can improve their performance against the upgraded Gotland-class. This would be extremely helpful as China now has AIP technology and would surely use such submarines in a naval conflict with the U.S. Navy.

About the Author 

Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, is the author of Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare. He is an Emerging Threats expert and former U.S. Army Infantry officer. You can follow him on Twitter @BMEastwood. He is presently a Senior Editor for National Security Journal. 

Summary and Top 5 Points: During the recent RIMPAC 24 exercises, the U.S. Navy showcased its new AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) by sinking the decommissioned USS Tarawa.

-Launched from an F/A-18F Super Hornet, the stealth missile is designed to counter high-value maritime targets, such as Chinese aircraft carriers.

-Developed by DARPA and based on the AGM-158B JASSM-ER, the LRASM offers precision and stealth, filling a critical anti-surface warfare capability gap.

-The exercise highlighted the missile's potential in a conflict in the Indo-Pacific, where naval and air superiority would be crucial.

-The demonstration also strengthened international partnerships and tactical proficiency among participating nations.

U.S. Navy Sinks Decommissioned Warship with New Stealth Missile at RIMPAC 24

Just recently, the U.S. military sacrificed two old warships at the altar of innovation.

The decommissioned USS Tarawa and USS Dubuque were sunk by friendly aircraft during Exercise Rim of the Pacific 24 or RIMPAC last month.

Responsible for the sinking of the USS Tarawa is a new long-range stealth anti-ship missile designed to take on the Chinese Navy.

A New Stealth Missile for F/A-18 Super Hornet 

A U.S. Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet that took off from an aircraft carrier launched the stealth munition against the decommissioned warship and sunk it.

Developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the AGM-158C LRASM is based on the AGM-158B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile – Extended Range (JASSM-ER). It is designed to take out enemy surface combatants with stealth and precision. In terms of customers, both the Air Force and Navy are interested in fielding the stealth munition in an operational capacity, as evidenced from the testing. Right now, the AGM-158C LRASM is operational on the F/A-18 Hornet and F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets and the B-1B Lancer strategic bomber.

“We have continued to invest in the design and development of LRASM’s anti-surface warfare capabilities to ensure that warfighters have the 21st century security solutions they need to complete their missions and come home safely,” Lisbeth Vogelpohl, LRASM program director at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, has said about the munition.

“This event was a testament to our commitment to deliver reliable products that work each and every time, ensuring those who serve stay ahead of ready,” Vogelpohl has added.

The Navy plans the AGM-158C LRASM a short-term solution to fill the “offensive anti-surface warfare air-launch capability gap,” according to Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR). It is intended to be used against high-value maritime targets, such as the Chinese aircraft carrier fleet or Chinese guided-missile cruisers and destroyers.

With the likelihood of a conflict in the Indo-Pacific against China always on the radar, the Navy and Air Force are investing heavily in platforms and munitions that could take on the challenge and win. A conflict in the vast Indo-Pacific would be one predominately between air and naval forces, much like the fighting between the United States and Imperial Japan in World War Two. As such, munitions like the AGM-158C LRASM are of the highest priority since they could given an advantage in naval combat.

RIMPAC 24 is designed to bolster American alliances and partnerships in the region. Dozens of countries with scores of warships, hundreds of aircraft, and thousands of troops are participating.

“During the SINKEXs, participating units from Australia, Malaysia, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, and the U.S. Air Force, Army and Navy gained proficiency in tactics, targeting and live firing against surface ships at sea,” the Navy said in a press release.

“Events like live-fire SINKEXs give participating nations the ability to test and conduct training on weapons and systems in a realistic environment that cannot be replicated in simulators. Additionally, these training events refine partner nations’ abilities to plan, communicate and conduct complex maritime operations such as precision and long-range strike capabilities,” the Navy added.

About the Author: 

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations and a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ). He holds a BA from Johns Hopkins University and an MA from Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Top 3 Points You Need to Know: The Su-35 "Flanker-E," a Russian fourth-generation fighter jet, was designed as a hybrid between older and newer warplanes, boasting advanced avionics, stealth features, and long-range capabilities. However, the ongoing war in Ukraine has exposed the aircraft's limitations, forcing it to operate in ways it wasn't designed for, such as lower-altitude and closer-range missions.

-Despite being a formidable platform, Ukraine's innovative tactics and advanced anti-aircraft systems have prevented the Su-35 from reaching its full potential.

-Although the Su-35 is not critical to Russia's overall war effort, its mixed performance highlights the challenges of adapting to modern combat environments.

Russia's Su-35 Problem Now in Focus over Ukraine 

The Su-35 “Flanker-E” was Russia’s attempt to keep pace with their American and Chinese great power rivals. On paper, it’s a powerhouse. In practice, the Su-35 has had a mixed record. This is not because the Russians are incapable of building competitive warplanes. 

They’ve got those. 

It is more likely because the Su-35 is a Russian warbird that incorporates many Western military components, making the production of these birds difficult as well as the fact the Russians have had to use the Su-35 in ways the plane was not designed to be used. 

The Su-35 Explained

Here's what we know: the Su-35 is a fourth-generation aircraft. What that means is that it is basically a hybrid between the fourth-generation birds that have existed since the 1970s and the newer, fifth-generation warplanes. This plane is equipped with a state-of-the-art avionics package, it has stealthier capabilities than most fourth-generation warplanes. It can carry a robust suite of weapons into battle. The Su-35 is fast and has a decent range. 

Moscow envisioned using the bird as a long-range combat platform. In the age of advanced anti-aircraft capabilities, Russia’s military wanted a platform that could launch over-the-horizon strikes on distant enemy targets. But war is the ultimate test. The Ukrainians have innovated tactics to deploy against the Russians, degrading Russia’s obvious advantages in the air war. Phased Away Tracking Radar to Intercept Target (PATRIOT) missile batteries and other anti-aircraft systems have been brought to bear in ways that have forced the Russians to deploy the Su-35 in lower-altitude, closer-range ways.

The Enemy Gets a Vote

Of course, the Russians are not the only country that has had to adapt to a dynamic combat environment. For example, in the Second World War, despite being designed to fly at higher altitudes, American and British bombers over Europe were made to fly lower and slower to ensure the accuracy of their bombs. While that was eighty years ago and technology has certainly evolved since those gruesome days of world war, the logic of war remains the same as it always has. 

That logic is simple: the enemy always gets a vote.  

Therefore, Ukraine has managed to negate the inherent strengths of the Su-35 as an “over-the-horizon” warplane. That doesn’t mean the Su-35 is a slouch. It just means it cannot—and has not—operate to its fullest capabilities because the kind of war it is fighting is fundamentally different from the kind of war it was designed to fight.

Even the manufacturer of the Flanker-E, Komsomolsk-on-Amur has stated that the warplane is not performing as advertised in Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine. The Ukrainians have downed multiple variants of this airplane, and they don’t appear to be abating in their aims to destroy these aircraft. 

What’s more, Russia needs to have air support flying in at closer ranges and lower altitudes, meaning that the Su-35 will never perform optimally.

The Su-35 in Perspective

Still, the Russians have many other warplanes at their disposal, and they’ve been able to handle their own against the innovative Ukrainians in combat. Sure, the Ukrainian military has surged into Russia, taking a 621-mile area, but the Ukrainian forces are spread thin. 

The Russians, recovering from the initial shock of the Ukrainian offensive, are likely readying a massive counterattack. Whether the Russian counterattack deploys the Su-35 or not remains to be seen. 

But the Su-35, regardless of what may happen with it, is not such an important system for Russia that not being able to use this bird to its fullest would harm their war effort. And that’s the key here.

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

Summary and Key Points: A trio of U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit bombers arrived at Royal Australian Air Force Base Amberley as part of the latest Bomber Task Force (BTF) deployment.

-Accompanied by KC-135R tanker aircraft, the stealth bombers are participating in training and strategic deterrence missions in the Indo-Pacific.

-This marks the first B-2 deployment to Australia since 2022, with the bombers expected to engage in joint exercises with RAAF F-35As.

-The BTF deployment underscores the U.S. commitment to interoperability with allies and maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific amidst growing regional tensions.

B-2 Bombers Flew 'Down Under'

A trio of United States Air Force B-2 Spirit bombers headed to the land down under, arriving at Royal Australian Air Force Base Amberley this past weekend, as part of the air service's latest Bomber Task Force (BTF) deployment. The long-range strategic bombers were accompanied in the epic flight by two KC-135R tanker aircraft from the Illinois National Guard.

"A Bomber Task Force deployment of U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, Airmen and support equipment from the 509th Bomb Wing and 131st BW, Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, has began at Royal Australian Air Force Base Amberley, Australia, Aug. 16, 2024," the Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) announced.

"United States strategic bombers can operate in the Indo-Pacific region from a broad array of overseas and continental U.S. locations with great operational resilience," PACAF added. "This deployment is in support of Pacific Air Forces’ training efforts with allies, partners, and joint forces and strategic deterrence missions to reinforce the rules-based international order. The Pacific Air Forces look for every opportunity to train alongside our allies and partners to demonstrate interoperability and bolster our collective ability to support a free and open Indo-Pacific."
 
Images of the B-2s arriving in Australia were shared by the 509th Bomb Wing (@Whiteman_AFB) on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.

Back Down Under

This deployment marks the first rotation of the flying wing bombers to Australia since the summer of 2022, while Spirits were also deployed to Guam earlier this year, the first time in more than five years. It was not announced how long the B-2s will remain in Australia, but according to Air & Space Forces magazine, such BTF deployments last two to three weeks, and include "training events with allies in the area to practice interoperability and secondary deployments to other locations to gain experience operating from airfields unaccustomed to supporting a bomber presence."

The U.S. has increased its interoperability exercises with the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). The deployment of the B-2s comes just weeks after U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptors and RAAF F-35A Lightning IIs took part in a "hot pit" refueling exercise, a key component of the Agile Employment Concept (ACE). That followed the recently concluded Exercise Pitch Black 24, the largest in the military's drill's 43-year history – which drew 20 participating nations and more than 140 aircraft from partner countries.

RAAF's Fifth Generation Aircraft Operating With the B-2

It is likely that during this BTF deployment, the B-2s will conduct joint operations with the RAAF's F-35As, as such exercises have become increasingly commonplace.

During the July 2022 deployment, the U.S. Air Force flying wing bombers took part in the bilateral "Koolendong 22" exercises, which included drills with the RAAF's F-35As, while Australia's Lightning IIs also participated in the Red Flag exercises for the first time in January at Nellis Air Force Base (AFB), Nevada, flying with the B-2s.

Bombers on the Move

It hasn't just been the U.S. Air Force's B-2s that have been logging the miles this year. In May, four U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortress bombers from Minot AFB landed at RAF Fairford as part of a routine Bomber Task Force (BTF) deployment, operating with NATO allies under BTF Europe 24-3.

That deployment was part of the air service's ongoing "Large Scale Global Exercise" series.

That same month, B-1 Lancers from the 28th Bomb Wing arrived at Andersen AFB, Guam, for a BTF deployment, integrating and training with allies and regional partners; while in July a pair of B-52s assigned to the 2nd Bomb Wing flew from Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, to Mihail Kogalniceanu Airbase, Romania, as part of the Bomber Task Force 24-4 mission.

The United States Air Force is the only NATO member, and just one of three nations – along with China and Russia – to operate long-range strategic bombers.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Oubliés, les tumultes de l'été dernier. Mme Ursula von der Leyen, présidente de la Commission européenne, menaçait alors les Italiens de représailles s'ils portaient au pouvoir Mme Giorgia Meloni. Désormais, les deux dirigeantes, l'une de droite, l'autre d'extrême droite, s'affichent tout sourire (...) / Politique, Extrême droite, Europe - 2023/07